Legal Opinion

Fratt v. Woodward

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1867PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County. Job F. Dye had a grant of land made to him by the Mexican Government, which was confirmed by the United States.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County. Job F. Dye had a grant of land made to him by the Mexican Government, which was confirmed by the United States. On the 19th day of November, 1857, he entered into the following contract with Fratt and King : “ Memorandum of a contract made this day between J. F. Dye of the first part, and Francis W. Fratt and Thomas F. King of the second part, to wit: The said J. F. Dye does agree to sell to the second party eight thousand acres of land, more or less, as may be found to be contained within the boundaries as described.…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Sanderson, J.:

The only point involved in these cases is answered by the case of Hicks v. Coleman, 25 Cal. 143. In that case the third call or line in the deed was expressed in these words: “ On the south or southeast by a line that runs one league, or five thousand varas parallel with the Cosumnes River.” The language which describes the second line in the deed from Dye to Fratt and King, and upon the true meaning of which these cases turn, is as follows: “ Thence running easterly parallel with the southern line of said Antelope Ranch, according to the survey of the same, made…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hicks v. ColemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  2. Jackson ex dem. Donaldson v. LucettNew York Supreme Court · 1805
  3. Jackson ex dem. Mentz v. StilesNew York Supreme Court · 1809

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Richfield Oil Corp. v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Vermont Marble Co. v. EastmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1917
  3. Anaheim Sugar Co. v. County of OrangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Haskell v. FriendMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
  5. E. E. McCalla Co. v. SleeperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API